|
Banned
|
inBoil and angelic, Welcome!
Luckily, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) understands "the law", and serves on the Senate Intel Committee that Sen. Jay Rockefeller chairs:
Background: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...fter-john-yoo/
Quote:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/20...e-white-house/
Whitehouse Reveals Smoking Gun of White House Claiming Not to Be Bound by Any Law
By: emptywheel Friday December 7, 2007 8:49 am
Damn, I love me some Sheldon Whitehouse. He, like, actually knows the law. And he, like, is willing to actually read the stuff he is exercising oversight over..
About "emptywheel":
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/wa...5bloggers.html
Bloggers for Firedoglake.com.. share an apartment in Washington while covering the trial of I. Lewis Libby Jr
By SCOTT SHANE
February 15, 2007
..With no audio or video feed permitted, the Firedoglake “live blog” has offered the fullest, fastest public report available. Many mainstream journalists use it to check on the trial..
....Some bloggers at the trial have seen their skepticism about mainstream reporting confirmed.
“It’s shown me the degree to which journalists work together to define the story,” said Marcy Wheeler, author of a book on the case, “Anatomy of Deceit,” and the woman usually in the Firedoglake live-blogger seat.
Ms. Wheeler, a business consultant from Michigan who writes under the nom-de-blog “emptywheel,” believes that some trial revelations have been underplayed in the conventional media because “once the narrative is set on a story, there’s no deviating from it.”...
|
Quote:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1197...googlenews_wsj
Details From Justice Legal Opinions
Could Complicate Surveillance Push
By EVAN PEREZ
December 7, 2007 10:06 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- In the latest complication for the Bush administration's controversial surveillance activities, a key Democratic ally revealed what he said were secret Justice Department legal opinions that appear to undercut assurances from the government that it is protecting Americans' privacy....
..Sen. Whitehouse said ..."Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it."
That suggests the 1981 executive order limiting the government's actions could be ignored by the president.
Sen. Whitehouse said another section stated that the president's powers as commander in chief allowed him to unilaterally "determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President's authority."
<h3>A Justice Department official said the opinions Sen. Whitehouse was quoting from were in line with past opinions issued under Democratic administrations dating back to the 1970s. The official disputed that the notes Sen. Whitehouse read were from secret documents.</h3> The official said, the "points noted by Senator Whitehouse represent basic and long-recognized propositions of law that flow directly from the Constitution's separation of powers. They are not the creation of this Administration, and they are fully consistent with" a landmark 1803 Supreme Court decision that serves as the basis for judicial review.
The 1978 FISA law was given a temporary update in August before Congress went on its summer break, but those changes are set to expire in February. President Bush and Republicans in Congress have pushed for broad changes to the law, saying it is necessary in order to allow intelligence gathering aimed fighting terrorism...
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/1...egal-opinions/
December 7, 2007, 8:18 pm
<h3>Sen. Whitehouse’s Statement on Justice Dept.’s Legal Opinions</h3>
In the latest complication for the Bush administration’s controversial surveillance activities, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, a key Democratic ally, revealed what he said were secret Justice Department legal opinions that appear to undercut assurances from the government that it is protecting Americans’ privacy. A Justice Department official said the opinions Sen. Whitehouse was quoting from were in line with past opinions issued under Democratic administrations dating back to the 1970s. The official disputed that the notes Sen. Whitehouse read were from secret documents.
Below is the text of Sen. Whitehouse’s press release:
Press Release of Senator Whitehouse
In FISA Speech, Whitehouse Sharply Criticizes Bush Administration’s Assertion of Executive Power
Friday, December 7, 2007
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, delivered the following remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate today:
We will shortly consider making right the things that are wrong with the so-called Protect America Act, a second-rate piece of legislation passed in a stampede in August at the behest of the Bush Administration. It is worth for a moment considering why making this right is so important.
President Bush pressed this legislation not only to establish how our government can spy on foreign agents, but how his administration can spy on Americans. Make no mistake, the legislation we passed in August is significantly about spying on Americans – a business this administration should not be allowed to get into except under the closest supervision. We have a plain and tested device for keeping tabs on the government when it’s keeping tabs on Americans. It is our Constitution.
Our Constitution has as its most elemental provision the separation of governmental powers into three separate branches. When the government feels it necessary to spy on its own citizens, each branch has a role.
The executive branch executes the laws, and conducts surveillance. The legislative branch sets the boundaries that protect Americans from improper government surveillance. The judicial branch oversees whether the government has followed the Constitution and the laws that protect U.S. citizens from violations of their privacy and their civil rights.
It sounds basic, but even an elementary understanding of this balance of powers eludes the Bush administration. So now we have to repair this flawed and shoddy “Protect America Act.”
Why are we in Congress so concerned about this? Why is it so vital that we energetically assert the role of Congress and the Courts when the Bush Administration seeks to spy on Americans?
Because look what the Bush Administration does behind our backs when they think no one is looking.
For years under the Bush Administration, the Office of Legal Counsel within the Department of Justice has issued highly classified secret legal opinions related to surveillance. This is an administration that hates answering to an American court, that wants to grade its own papers, and OLC is the inside place the administration goes to get legal support for its spying program.
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was given access to those opinions, and spent hours poring over them. Sitting in that secure room, as a lawyer, as a former U.S. Attorney, legal counsel to Rhode Island’s Governor, and State Attorney General, I was increasingly dismayed and amazed as I read on.
To give you an example of what I read, I have gotten three legal propositions from these OLC opinions declassified. Here they are, as accurately as my note taking could reproduce them from the classified documents. Listen for yourself. I will read all three, and then discuss each one.
1. An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
2. The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.
3. The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.
Let’s start with number one. Bear in mind that the so-called Protect America Act that was stampeded through this great body in August provides no – zero – statutory protections for Americans traveling abroad from government wiretapping. None if you’re a businesswoman traveling on business overseas, none if you’re a father taking the kids to the Caribbean, none if you’re visiting uncles or aunts in Italy or Ireland, none even if you’re a soldier in the uniform of the United States posted overseas. The Bush Administration provided in that hastily-passed law no statutory restrictions on their ability to wiretap you at will, to tap your cell phone, your e-mail, whatever.
The only restriction is an executive order called 12333, which limits executive branch surveillance to Americans who the Attorney General determines to be agents of a foreign power. That’s what the executive order says.
But what does this administration say about executive orders?
An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an executive order, the President has instead modified or waived it.
“Whenever (the President) wishes to depart from the terms of a previous executive order,” he may do so because “an executive order cannot limit a President.” And he doesn’t have to change the executive order, or give notice that he’s violating it, because by “depart(ing) from the executive order,” the President “has instead modified or waived it.”
So unless Congress acts, here is what legally prevents this President from wiretapping Americans traveling abroad at will: nothing. Nothing.
That was among the most egregious flaws in the bill passed during the August stampede they orchestrated by the Bush Administration – and this OLC opinion shows why we need to correct it.
Here’s number two.
The President, exercising his constitutional authority under Article II, can determine whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II.
<h3>Yes, that’s right. The President, according to the George W. Bush OLC, has Article II power to determine what the scope of his Article II powers are.
Never mind a little decision called Marbury v. Madison, written by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1803, establishing the proposition that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Does this administration agree that it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the President’s authority is under Article II? No, it is the President, according to this OLC, who decides the legal limits of his own Article II power.
The question “whether an action is a lawful exercise of the President’s authority under Article II,” is to be determined by the President’s minions, “exercising his constitutional authority under Article II.”
It really makes you wonder, who are these people? They have got to be smart people to get there. How can people who are so smart be so misguided?
And then, it gets worse. Remember point three.
The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.
Let that sink in a minute.
The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. This nation was founded in rejection of the royalist principles that “l’etat c’est moi” and “The King can do no wrong.” Our Attorney General swears an oath to defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States; we are not some banana republic in which the officials all have to kowtow to the “supreme leader.” Imagine a general counsel to a major U.S. corporation telling his board of directors, “in this company the counsel’s office is bound by the CEO’s legal determinations.”</h3> The board ought to throw that lawyer out – it’s malpractice, probably even unethical.
Wherever you are, if you are watching this, do me a favor. The next time you are in Washington, D.C., take a taxi some evening to the Department of Justice. Stand outside, and look up at that building shining against the starry night. Look at the sign outside- “The United States Department of Justice.” Think of the heroes who have served there, and the battles fought. Think of the late nights, the brave decisions, the hard work of advancing and protecting our democracy that has been done in those halls. Think about how that all makes you feel.
Then think about this statement:
The Department of Justice is bound by the President’s legal determinations.
If you don’t feel a difference from what you were feeling a moment ago, well, congratulations – there is probably a job for you in the Bush administration. Consider the sad irony that this theory was crafted in that very building, by the George W. Bush Office of Legal Counsel.
In a nutshell, these three Bush administration legal propositions boil down to this:
1. “I don’t have to follow my own rules, and I don’t have to tell you when I’m breaking them.”
2. “I get to determine what my own powers are.”
3. “The Department of Justice doesn’t tell me what the law is, I tell the Department of Justice what the law is.”
<h3>When the Congress of the United States is willing to roll over for an unprincipled President, this is where you end up.</h3> We should not even be having this discussion..
|
I have condensed the OP of the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108289"> President Bush: Honest Head of State, Who Observes/Upholds International Treaties,Or?</a>
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=108289
IMO, it is important to discuss the admission by president Bush, in his speech yesterday, that the CIA did run "secret prisons", just as Dana Priest of the WaPo reported, last november, and the implications of this admission and the overall, secret Bush administration, "policy", that, as the second quote box here supports, seems to make a case for the accusation that the Bush admin. "program", is itself, a domestic and an international crime, in fact several felonies and an attack on international human rights treaty provisions that the US has long signed off on, upheld, and respected...until 2001:
News Report that broke this "story", last year:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101644_pf.html
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; A01
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement......
|
Quote:
http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/257559.htm
Civil Liberties
From Tom Head,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.
What the President Didn't Say
Category: War on Terror
...Let's examine relevant portions of <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html">the speech</a> carefully. First:<blockquote class=yes>One reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because of the hard work of thousands of dedicated men and women in our government, who have toiled day and night, along with our allies, to stop the enemy from carrying out their plans. And we are grateful for these hardworking citizens of ours.<br><br>
Another reason the terrorists have not succeeded is because our government has changed its policies -- and given our military, intelligence, and law enforcement personnel the tools they need to fight this enemy and protect our people and preserve our freedoms.</blockquote>Note that what President Bush is saying here is very clearly that there is a connection between the amount of power given to his administration and the absence of post-9/11 terrorist attacks. He is arguing, in effect, that you can't have one without the other--that a more libertarian government would not be able to effectively fight terrorism.<br><br>He provides no tangible evidence to back up this assertion, but he doesn't really have to. The overwhelming memory of 9/11 hovers over his speech; he has delivered it less than a week before the fifth anniversary of the attacks, and even gone to the trouble of stocking the audience with the families of 9/11 victims, as he noted at the beginning of his speech:<blockquote class=yes>Thank you. Thanks for the warm welcome. Welcome to the White House. Mr. Vice President, Secretary Rice, Attorney General Gonzales, Ambassador Negroponte, General Hayden, members of the United States Congress, <b>families who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks on our nation</b>, and my fellow citizens: Thanks for coming.</blockquote>So the message here is undeniable: "When you hear me talk about these complex civil liberties issues, think of 9/11. Think of how much danger you're in, and how badly you want to be safe."<br><br>
<b>Politicians typically make that kind of blatant appeal to fear when they're asking for more power, or attempting to justify power that they already have.</b><br>
After reminding us that we're safe because his administration has been granted a controversial amount of power, President Bush goes on to say:<blockquote class=yes>The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation, they defend no territory, and they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders, or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society; they send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations; they live quietly among their victims; they conspire in secret, and then they strike without warning.</blockquote><b>This is important because it is the same reasoning the Bush administration used in <a href="http://civilliberty.about.com/od/waronterror/p/hamdan.htm"><i>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</i></a> (2006) to justify treatment of accused terrorists in a manner inconsistent with the Geneva Conventions.</b> The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument and ruled that the Geneva Conventions do in fact apply to accused terrorists, but President Bush's statement here is a subtle reminder that he still regards terrorists as a class of enemy separate from enemy soldiers.<br><br>In other words, there are things that we wouldn't do to a soldier that we might do to a terrorist. Things that he alludes to in his very next sentence:<blockquote class=yes>In this new war, the most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists, themselves. Captured terrorists have unique knowledge about how terrorist networks operate. They have knowledge of where their operatives are deployed, and knowledge about what plots are underway. This intelligence -- this is intelligence that cannot be found any other place. And our security depends on getting this kind of information.</blockquote>If President Bush is talking about ordinary interrogations, then this statement is meaningless pap. After all, what would be the alternative? Arresting accused terrorists and then <i>not</i> interrogating them?<br><br>But President Bush is not talking about ordinary interrogations. Although he makes mention of military arrests in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the long-debated prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the real topic of his speech is a little more controversial...
..President Bush follows up this statement with a description of the arrest of Abu Zubaydah, and the most explicit concession yet that the CIA has used "torture-lite" as an interrogation method:<blockquote class=yes>We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking.... I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.</blockquote>And they gave us information we wouldn't have otherwise had, right? Well...not necessarily:<blockquote class=yes>Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that <b>helped</b> us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided <b>helped</b> lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that <b>helped</b> in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.</blockquote>So we used controversial and secret interrogation techniques in secret CIA prisons, denied due process, violated the Geneva Conventions and very probably the War Crimes Act as well (see below), and we got information that...well, helped.<br><br>
Note that with Abu Zubaydah, President Bush states very clearly that the CIA tried conventional interrogation techniques, that they didn't work, and that the newer, more controversial techniques yielded information that was helpful but may or may not have been crucial. Fair enough. <br><br>The information obtained from Khalid Sheikh Muhammad using these methods <i>was</i> crucial, right? That's how it sounds on a first reading, but let's look at what the president <i>didn't</i> say:<blockquote class=yes>Once in our custody, KSM was questioned by the CIA using these procedures, and he soon provided information that helped us stop another planned attack on the United States. During questioning, KSM told us about another al Qaeda operative he knew was in CIA custody -- a terrorist named Majid Khan. KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a suspected terrorist leader named Hambali, the leader of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate known as "J-I". CIA officers confronted Khan with this information. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair, and provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative.</blockquote>Please note that this is the paragraph that <i>immediately follows</i> the discussion of Abu Zubaydah. See a difference in the way these two interrogations are described? Zubaydah was interrogated in the normal way, didn't yield the necessary information, was subjected to "torture-lite," and yielded information that may or may not have been crucial to counterterrorism efforts. But Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was simply captured and questioned using "these procedures"--if we're to read this literally, he went straight from handcuffs to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Box_(torture)">sweat box</a>.<br><br>That doesn't make much sense...unless by "these procedures" President Bush is referring collectively to <i>all</i> interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, without making it clear how much information was obtained through ordinary interrogation, or how successful or unsuccessful the CIA's use of more controversial techniques might have been.<br><br>President Bush does give an example of one instance where Khalid Sheikh Muhammad gave specific information about a terrorist attack:<blockquote class=yes>KSM also provided vital information on al Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons. During questioning, KSM admitted that he had met three individuals involved in al Qaeda's efforts to produce anthrax, a deadly biological agent -- and he identified one of the individuals as a terrorist named Yazid. KSM apparently believed we already had this information, because Yazid had been captured and taken into foreign custody before KSM's arrest.</blockquote>...and the information was obtained through good old fashioned misdirection, something any good police detective could have used without violating the Bill of Rights, much less the Geneva Conventions or the War Crimes Act.<br><br>
Note that, despite the numerous examples President Bush has given, he fails to name <i>a single specific instance where the controversial interrogation techniques yielded any useful information that we didn't already have</i>. The information invariably "helped" in some non-specific way:<blockquote class=yes>Terrorists held in CIA custody have also provided information that <b>helped</b> stop a planned strike on U.S. Marines at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti -- they were going to use an explosive laden water tanker. They <b>helped</b> stop a planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi using car bombs and motorcycle bombs, and they <b>helped</b> stop a plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into Heathrow or the Canary Wharf in London.</blockquote>These nightmare scenarios are supposed to make us more receptive to the idea of secret CIA prisons and controversial interrogation techniques, as are the consistent references to the 9/11 attacks.<br><br>The phrase "9/11" or "September 11th" is used 14 times in this short speech, which is actually about later attacks, if one wants to get technical, and not 9/11 itself. It is the specter of 9/11 that is supposed to make us amenable to...to...well, what, exactly?<br><br>President Bush mentions a proposal to ask Congress to approve military commissions to try suspected terrorists, but he has asked for that before--there's nothing new or controversial about this legislation, which has already been discussed and is expected to easily pass Congress. No, he's asking for something a little more controversial:<blockquote class=yes>So today, I'm asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. First, I'm asking Congress to <b>list the specific, recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act</b> -- so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies. Second, I'm asking that Congress make explicit that <b>by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act our personnel are fulfilling America's obligations under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions</b>. Third, I'm asking that Congress <b>make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as a basis to sue our personnel in courts -- in U.S. courts</b>. The men and women who protect us should not have to fear lawsuits filed by terrorists because they're doing their jobs.<br><br>...
..So President Bush's message to the international community is simple: The CIA secret prisons, their existence long suspected by conspiracy buffs, really do exist. "Torture-lite" techniques, which the Bush administration has been long accused of using, really have been put to use. And, in an ultimate display of chutzpah, President Bush has asked Congress to pass legislation that would essentially legitimize both.<br><br>
This is a very big deal, and the international human rights community <a href="http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/09/06/usdom14139.htm">recognizes it as such</a>. Here's hoping the mainstream U.S. media will follow suit.<br><br>
|
Quote:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=36597
09.07.06
BUSH LIES ABOUT RAMZI BIN AL SHIBH, ABU ZUBAYDAH AND TORTURE:
Not that it should surprise anyone anymore, but yesterday's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html">stomach-churning Bush speech</a> defending torture contains this little number:
We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. ..... But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.
Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th. For example, Zubaydah identified one of KSM's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks--a terrorist named Ramzi bin al Shibh. The information Zubaydah provided helped lead to the capture of bin al Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
First, <a href="http://www.ronsuskind.com/theonepercentdoctrine/">according to Ron Suskind</a>, Abu Zubaydah didn't clam up because he was "trained to resist interrogation," but because he has the mental capacity of a retarded child. Second, the idea that Abu Zubaydah's interrogation tipped off the U.S. to the existence of Ramzi bin Al Shibh is just an outright lie. A Nexis search for "Ramzi Binalshibh" between September 11, 2001 and March 1, 2002--the U.S. captured Abu Zubaydah in March 2002--turns up 26 hits for The Washington Post alone. Everyone involved in counterterrorism knew who bin Al Shibh was. Now-retired FBI Al Qaeda hunter Dennis Lormel <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/06/attack/main511244.shtml">told Congress who Ramzi bin Al Shibh was in February 2002.</a> Abu Zubaydah getting waterboarded and spouting bin Al Shibh's name did not tell us anything we did not already know.
Of course, most Americans don't have access to Nexis..... Bush is exploiting that ignorance to tell the American people an outright lie in order to convince them that we need to torture people. As Bush once said in another context, if this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
--Spencer Ackerman
|
|
An "oldie", posted on this forum 12-14-2005 by raveneye :
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...8&postcount=59
The Financial Times Limited
Financial Times (London, England)
December 14, 2005 Wednesday
London Edition 1
SECTION: THE AMERICAS; Pg. 12
LENGTH: 1275 words
HEADLINE: Cheney leads fight for presidential power. Caroline Daniel argues that the vice-president's efforts to prevent Congress from outlawing torture should be seen as a battle in the war over executive muscle
BYLINE: By CAROLINE DANIEL
Dick Cheney used to be portrayed in cartoons as the ventriloquist of the administration, his hand inserted into a George W. Bush puppet. Now the cartoons of the vice-president have a darker tone, with his hands controlling various instruments of torture.
The image reflects his dominant role in efforts to prevent Congress from outlawing the use of any interrogation methods deemed to be cruel, inhumane or degrading. After he lobbied senators to dismiss the amendment a Washington Post editorial dubbed him: "Vice-President for Torture".
Mr Cheney's advocacy, however, is best understood not as a defence of torture but as a key battle in the war over presidential power. His views of executive power were forged during the US retreat from Vietnam at a time of congressional assertiveness on foreign policy. After September 11 2001 he saw a chance to implement ideas about expansive executive power that he had long embraced and swing the pendulum back towards the president.
In an ABC interview in January 2002, Mr Cheney set out his philosophy: "In 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. One of the things that I feel an obligation on - and I know the president does too - is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them."
His interest in the issue can be traced to his formative political years as chief of staff to President Gerald Ford from 1975. His promotion came amid growing public unease over Vietnam. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Act, forcing the president explicitly to consult and report back to them when committing troops overseas. In 1974 the Church committee flexed its authority over intelligence activities, sparked by revulsion against CIA dirty tricks in the 1960s and 1970s.
"He saw the power of the presidency emasculated under his watch, particularly with the inability to stay the course in Vietnam," says Vin Weber, a Republican strategist who has known him for 25 years. "He's been determined to reverse this ever since from the energy taskforce to national security. I believe the current issue is less about the value of torture than about an imperative to preserve and strengthen the presidency."
Even as a congressman, Mr Cheney's loyalties lay with the White House. According to Congressional Quarterly, in 1981, 83 per cent of his votes backed Ronald Reagan, and in 1982, it was 87 per cent, making him the second strongest supporter in the House. His instincts were reinforced by Iran-Contra. The scandal was caused in part by Reagan's efforts to get around a congressional prohibition on giving aid to the Nicaraguan Contras by using the proceeds of secret arms sales to Iran. Gary Schmitt of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank, says Mr Cheney's role as minority chair of the Iran-Contra committee crystallised his views. "The minority report is a sophisticated analysis of the separation of powers and Dick Cheney's staff wrote that section."
One conclusion of the minority report, published in 1987, was that Iran-Contra could be traced to a boundless view of congressional power in the 1970s, and the "state of political guerilla warfare over foreign policy between the legislative and executive branches."
Elected in the wake of Iran-Contra, George H.W. Bush led a deliberate, co-ordinated effort to redraw the lines between the different branches of government. Dick Cheney, as his defence secretary, griped about reporting requirements to Congress, and in 1989 set out his own ideas in a paper to the AEI, called "Congressional Over-reaching in Foreign Policy". He denounced presidential paralysis by congressional indecision. "When Congress steps beyond its capacities, it takes traits that can be helpful to collective deliberation and turns them into a harmful blend of vacillation, credit claiming, blame avoidance and indecision," he warned. "The presidency in contrast, was designed as a one-person office to insure it would be ready for action. Its major characteristics, to use the language of Federalist No.70, were to be 'decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch'."
George W. Bush continued the strategy of his father. Mr Cheney has led the charge. The first sign was in 2001 when he refused to give the names of advisers to his energy taskforce to Congress. His aim was to establish a right to confidential consultations, using legal trench warfare to set precedents that will outlast his term in office.
<h3>It is in the "war on terror" that the administration has been most vigorous and successful in reclaiming authority in foreign policy. It marked an astute recognition that congressional power tends to be greatest at times of peace and presidential power at times of war.</h3>
A key player has been David Addington, who got to know Mr Cheney in the 1980s when he worked as a lawyer for the CIA and the congressional intelligence committee. The two men shared the same views of Iran-Contra. He became Pentagon general counsel under Mr Cheney and later his legal counsel. Mr Addington helped draft a controversial August 2002 Justice Department memo that redefined torture so narrowly that it seemed to permit the abuse of detainees and also noted that the president could legally order torture in his role as commander in chief.
In spite of the damage to the US international image over torture claims, Mr Cheney has shown no signs of backing down. The priority he places on these legal issues rather than quick political payoffs was shown when he picked Mr Addington as his new chief of staff when the incumbent was indicted for his role in the CIA leak case.
This defiant public image on issues such as torture and Iraq has come at a price. His approval ratings slumped to 19 per cent in a CBS News poll. "Cheney has become an obvious target, and he wears the bulls-eye very well to anti-war critics and those concerned with torture," says Paul Light, a professor at New York University. "He is a vice-president in reverse. In the past vice-presidents, who become players become more powerful over time. Dick Cheney started not as a junkyard dog but as a father-figure, a mentor."
Part of his insouciance comes from the fact that he is unusually free to speak his mind. He has no plans to stand for president, so feels no need to court popular or congressional approval. He sees himself as accountable to the president. "He has got into a bubble," says Professor James Thurber of American University. "It is all about building coalitions and he doesn't seem to be thinking as he was in the first six months of the first term about congressional liaison."
There are few signs that Mr Bush is distancing himself from his closest and most powerful counsellors. Yet there are dangers that his effort to expand executive power could be jeopardised by over-reaching and a failure to pay attention to the politics. The amendment over torture from Senator John McCain - backed by 90 senators to 9 against - is clearly one sign of this.
As history has shown, congressional attacks on presidential power have typically followed executive branch scandal. Moreover, there is a danger that by embracing torture it shores up the legal powers of the presidency but erodes an equally critical aspect: its moral authority.
So far Mr Cheney has resisted making concessions over the torture issue..
|
From 11-29-2005:
[quote] http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...0&postcount=51
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
....Well really none of us has a clue what Cheney 'learned' in the Nixon presidency. Thats way to hypothetical and speculative to even dream of answering, but luckily you provided us with a 'article' to lead us along.
Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal thwarted his designs for an unchecked imperial presidency. It was in that White House that Cheney gained his formative experience as the assistant to Nixon's counselor, Donald Rumsfeld. When Gerald Ford acceded to the presidency, he summoned Rumsfeld from his posting as NATO ambassador to become his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, in turn, brought back his former deputy, Cheney.
From Nixon, they learned the application of ruthlessness and the harsh lesson of failure. Under Ford, Rumsfeld designated Cheney as his surrogate on intelligence matters.
This is just speculation, and based on the tone of the article and the source, we can assume that objectivity was not high on the authors list.
Do you SEE where you went wrong and why this thread is so utterly pointless?
|
Research does wonders for a truly curious mind...
Quote:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB142/
Washington, D.C., November 23, 2004 - President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign the Freedom of Information Act strengthening amendments passed by Congress 30 years ago, but concern about leaks (shared by his chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy <b>Richard Cheney</b>) and legal arguments that the bill was unconstitutional (marshaled by government lawyer Antonin Scalia, among others) persuaded Ford to veto the bill, according to declassified documents posted today by the National Security Archive to mark the 30th anniversary of the veto override.
The documents include President Ford's handwritten notation on his first legislative briefing document after succeeding President Nixon in August 1974, that "a veto [of the FOIA bill] presents problems. How serious are our objections?" White House aide Ken Cole wrote Ford on September 25, 1974, "There is little question that the legislation is bad on the merits, the real question is whether opposing it is important enough to face the political consequences. Obviously, there is a significant political disadvantage to vetoing a Freedom of Information bill, especially just before an election, when your Administration's theme is one of openness and candor."
On November 20, 1974, the House of Representatives voted to <b>override Ford's veto by a margin of 371 to 31;</b> on November 21, <b>the Senate followed suit by a 65 to 27 vote,</b> giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.[i]
Footnotes
[i] Memorandum for President Ford from Ken Cole, "H.R. 12471, Amendments to the Freedom of Information Act," September 25, 1974 Source: Gerald R. Ford Library. Document 10.
|
One thing you are right about, ustwo, is that there is much that we cannot know for certain. Bush and Cheney have worked O.T., to insure that!
Quote:
http://hnn.us/comments/10377.html
24 March 2003)
<h3>1. REP. OSE INTRODUCES BILL TO REVOKE PRA EXECUTIVE ORDER
On 27 March 2003, Rep. Doug Ose (R-CA) along with a bi-partisan group of
seven other members of the House Committee on Government Reform, introduced
legislation (H.R.1493) that revokes President George Bush's Executive Order
13233 of November 2001. That order, "Further Implementation of the
Presidential Records Act" imposed new procedures and restrictions on the
implementation of the Presidential Records Act (PRA).</h3>
This is one of the shortest and simplest bills on record -- under 100
words: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, Section 1. REVOCATION OF
EXECUTIVE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 1, 2001. Executive Order number 13233, dated
November 1, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 56025), shall have no force or effect, and
Executive Order number 12667, dated January 18, 1989 (54 Reg. 3403) shall
apply by its terms."
In his floor statement introducing the bill
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2003/h032703.html) Ose stated that Bush EO
"is inconsistent both with the Presidential Records Act itself and with
NARA's codified implementing regulations." Furthermore, it "violates not
only the spirit but also the letter of the Presidential Records Act. It
undercuts the public's rights to be fully informed about how its government
operated in the past. My bill would restore the public's right to know and
its confidence in our government."
|
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.smh-hq.org/gazette/volumes/142/ncc.html
BUSH ISSUES NEW SECRECY EXECUTIVE ORDER
On 25 March 2003 President George W. Bush signed a 31-page Executive Order "Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, As Amended, Classified National Security Information" (EO 13291) replacing the soon-to-expire Clinton-era E.O. relating to the automatic declassification of federal government documents after 25 years. With a handful of exceptions, the new EO closely corresponds to a draft obtained by the National Coalition for History and distributed via the Internet earlier in March (See "Draft Executive Order Replacing EO 12958 Circulates" -- NCH WASHINGTON UPDATE, Vol. 9, #11; 13 March 2003).
The announcement of the president's signing the EO appears to have been carefully orchestrated by the White House to minimize public attention to the new order. One press insider characterized the strategy employed by the White House as "advance damage control." <b>The administration tactic managed to short circuit a repeat of the public relations disaster that followed the release of the Presidential Records Act EO in 2001.</b>
Around 7:00 pm on 25 March, copies of the signed EO were released to select members of the Washington press corps. Recipients were connected via conference call to a "senior administration official" who provided a background briefing on the condition of anonymity (see: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2003/03/wh032503.html). Because of copy deadlines, <b>the timing of the briefing made it difficult for reporters to consult experts in disclosure and government secrecy who could provide meaningful comment. Also, because the president was scheduled to be on the road the next day, no routine press briefing was anticipated, making it impossible for reporters to pose timely on-the-record questions to administration officials.</b> Nevertheless, hastily put-together yet generally accurate articles appeared in The Washington Post, New York Times, and over major news wires such as the Associated Press. Feature stories also were broadcast on National Public Radio, Pacifica radio, and through other non-print media outlets. Regardless of the "advance damage control," reporters are expected to ask administration officials probing questions during the next regularly scheduled White House press briefing this Friday morning.
The new EO retains the essential provision of the Clinton order -- automatic declassification of federal agency records after 25 years -- but with some notable caveats. In general, the government now has more discretion to keep information classified indefinitely, especially if it falls within a broad new definition of "national security." ...
|
Quote:
http://www.archivists.org/statements...in2.asp?prnt=y
Statement for the Record on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States
July 22, 2004
Although the Society of American Archivists (SAA) would have preferred a process in which we were permitted to testify at the hearing regarding the appointment of Allen Weinstein to become the next Archivist of the United States we thank the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs for the opportunity to comment. The choice of a qualified nominee to become the Archivist of the United States is an important decision that ultimately benefits all Americans by ensuring that our history will be preserved and that our citizens will be able to hold their government accountable for its actions and decisions through the careful and impartial management of the records of government.
To that end, we express our intent to cooperate with Professor Weinstein and to work with him if he is appointed Archivist of the United States.
However, we also wish to convey again the strong reservations that the Society of American Archivists and thirty other archives, history, and library organizations have expressed about the manner in which this nomination was made. As noted in a Statement developed by SAA, the National Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators, and the Council of State Historical Records Coordinators (issued shortly after the April 8, 2004, announcement of Professor Weinstein’s nomination), Congress created the National Archives and Records Administration—and the position of Archivist of the United States—to be both independent and non-partisan. In the National Archives Act (Public Law 98-497), Congress intended that filling the position of Archivist of the United States should involve an open process, with consultation with appropriate professional organizations that could speak from knowledge and experience concerning the qualifications of nominees. Attached are copies of the “Statement on the Nomination of Allen Weinstein to Become Archivist of the United States”(including the names of the organizations that supported it), as well as “Joint Statement on Selection Criteria for the Archivist of the United States” and “Joint Statement on Questions to Ask the Nominee for Archivist of the United States.” We ask that these documents be entered into the permanent record of these hearings.
<b>It is our view that this nomination was undertaken outside both the letter and the spirit of the law.</b> We believe that the evidence is clear that the White House effectively removed John Carlin when it asked him for a letter of resignation in December 2003 after having already identified a replacement in the fall of that year. <b>It is within the power of the President to remove the Archivist, but if he takes this action, the law calls for him to provide Congress with an explanation of his reasons for doing so. To date, no such explanation has been provided.</b> We hope that the Committee will ask the White House to fulfill its obligation under the law rather than create another precedent that erodes the power and authority of the United States Congress.
We also hope that the Committee will begin working with interested professional associations to establish a more formal procedure that can be used for future nominations. ...
..But we do believe that the failure to follow the process outlined in law threatens the tradition of independence and non-partisanship that enables the Archivist of the United States to fulfill his obligations effectively to the benefit of all Americans.
|
roachboy....how long do you predict that it will be until these folks adopt a policy of airbrushing out, the faces of people in official photos who have offended our "leaders"?
|
The POINT is that Cheney lived for "his moment", ever since he was Gerald Ford's white house chief of staff in 1974 to '76. Bush appointed him, in 2000, to lead a search for a Bush running mate. He picked himself. After taking office, an initial act of the two was to issue an executive office sealing presidential records until after they were dead....then they "went to town", against our system of accountability and the "rule of law".
Key democrats Rockefeller and Harman were told more about the abuses to our constitutional rights, international human rights treaties, and to "due process" of persons arrested by US authorities, and they did not do enough to object. |